Flight 77 was tracked as well... well.. a "moving target" was tracked from west of Dulles to the pentagon. Wait till you see what we have in store for you in our next upcoming documentary. Its going to blow you away. Almost done with it...

Cannot wait! This interview is truly compelling, and the next one must be even more so.

Keep in mind that by no means would this stand up in a court. All of our evidence is circumstantial. However, all of that evidence is building into a clear picture. And we're not going to court with this. We're going to the court of public opinion.

We're trying to get the word out there. We couldnt do it without your support. If you haven't yet.. please feel free to pick up a DVD as it helps us to bring the news to you. Again. .thanks for your support.

i was wondering if you pilots for 9/11 truth have ever looked into the crossing point of AA 11 and UA 175 over Stewart Air Force Base in New Windsor, NY at around 8:36? I wrote a little thing a while back on that. I think something fishy went on there, i'm be interested to hear what you guys think.

Remember.. pilotsfor911truth.org is still in its infacy... i have dedicated my life to this research and growing a professional organization based on facts. We are currently wrapping up our AA77 investigation. We most likely will be moving onto United 93 next.. but we have some new information which may draw our focus to American 11 and United 175 flights prior to diving into UA93. Keep an eye on our site as we update it when we sort the information. I as well, disseminate information on a regular basis. When we start to cover the WTC flights, it will be made available far and wide..

Bottom line.. we at pilotsfor911truth.org are growing.. we want ANSWERS! We wont stop till we get them...

well you guys are doing a great job! keep up the good work. i've done a lot of research on mainly the Norman Mineta testimony aspect of AA 77. i don't know if u guys are intested in that, but it might compliment what you guys are doing

i assume you guys have the full transcript, but i'll post it here anyways for those who want to see.... it clears up that misconeption of that loop that it takes as illustrated in the USA today map, and in much of Griffen's and other's work. some site that this is the first time the flight goes off course, but it is not offically hijacked by this point at it was normal procedure to avoid another aircraft.

At this same time, 8:36am, AA 77 (the flight that hit the pentagon) had deviated from its flight path and changed altitude. AA 77 was instructed by ATC to make two, 20 degree, turns and change altitude before returning to its scheduled flight path. This is routene procedure to aviod other aircrafts (traffic).

Routine radio communication was made with the pilot of AA 77 at 8:51. Shortly thereafter, the plane was suspected to have been hijacked since it made an unauthorized turn at 8:54 and then the transponder wass turned off at 8:56. Once the transponder was turned off, the flight path taken towards the Pentagon cannot be determined because ATC could not track the plane with primary surveillance radar (PSR). PSR operates totally independently of the target aircraft - that is, no action from the aircraft is required for it to provide a radar return. Since ATC could not track AA 77 with PSR like they had done with the other three hijacked planes when their transponders were turned off, ATC assumed it crashed. This reasonable assumption allowed AA 77 to hit the pentagon at 9:37 without being intercepted by the military.

hey man, don't ever be embarrassed to ask a question, we're all learning here. it's not an ignorant question either, most people don't really know the whole story about AA 77. i'm sure when the pilots film is out, they'll explain it all better. but here it goes:

Routine radio communication was made with the pilot of AA 77 at 8:51. Shortly thereafter, the plane was suspected to have been hijacked since it made an unauthorized turn at 8:54 and then the transponder wass turned off at 8:56. Once the transponder was turned off, the flight path taken towards the Pentagon cannot be determined because ATC could not track the plane with primary surveillance radar (PSR). PSR operates totally independently of the target aircraft - that is, no action from the aircraft is required for it to provide a radar return. Since ATC could not track AA 77 with PSR like they had done with the other three hijacked planes when their transponders were turned off, ATC assumed it crashed. This reasonable assumption allowed AA 77 to hit the pentagon at 9:37 without being intercepted by the military.

so basically when they turned the transponder off, it dissappred from primary radar, which should be impossible, but they said it was in a low radar coverage area. what i think, is that the actual plane landed around 8:36, but a fake radar blip was incerted, so when they took the blip away (aka hijacker turns transponder off) the plane dissappears. then the launch their drone plane from god knows where and it hits the pentagon.

the best research on this is by team8+ where someone wrote a holes in radar article. the link doesn't seem to work anymore.

* Within the area that the hijackings took place, there are two areas with no primary radar coverage that stretch up towards Canada.
* Flight 11 switched off its transponder right next to an area with no primary radar coverage.
* Flight 77 switched off its transponder right next to an area with no primary radar coverage.
* Flight 93 switched off its transponder right next to an area with no primary radar coverage.
* United Flight 175 switched off its transponder next to United Flight 93.
* We have two incidences where a hijacked plane came very close to a non-hijacked plane. (What are the odds?) Flight 11(hijacked) meets Flight 175 (not hijacked). Flight 175 (hijacked) meets Flight 93 (Not Hijacked)

Question 1: How did the "hijackers" know exactly where these huge breaches in air defence were located? Question 2: Why go to all that trouble when you can take off from nearby airports (Dulles/Newark), hijack the plane and crash it straight away? This article was originally published on www.the-movement.com

...your post had a lot of information I wasn't aware of....especially about the areas without primary radar coverage and the transponders being turned off near them...I did know about the planes crossing paths near each other and find that noteworthy, especially as at least one of those occurs near an airport (Stewart)....

Also, we know the three planes with "complete" flight paths make major changes of direction over airports, another anomaly I find intrigueing in light of Operation Northwoods.

This part from the Kean Report (I believe) that you quote has always confused me, and is one reason why I asked the question:

"Once the transponder was turned off, the flight path taken towards the Pentagon cannot be determined because ATC could not track the plane with primary surveillance radar (PSR). PSR operates totally independently of the target aircraft - that is, no action from the aircraft is required for it to provide a radar return.

Since ATC could not track AA 77 with PSR like they had done with the other three hijacked planes when their transponders were turned off, ATC assumed it crashed." (Why?????, what was the difference???)

I still don't really understand why, if aircraft are required to do nothing for PSR to function and all 3 other airplanes were tracked after their transponders were turned off, 77 couldn't be tracked by PSR also....after all, as you state, they were near primary radar coverage-absent areas also...

i'm not quoting the 9/11 commission report, but that's in nut shell what they say. they assumed the plane crashed, because it all of a sudden dissappeard from radar. they could not find it on primary radar, so the only logical conclusion is that the plane is no longer flying in the air... therefore it must have crashed. the excuse used is that the FAA was seaching to the west because it didn't see it make the loop back. you're supposed to be able to track pretty much any big flying object on PSR, but they say that the transponder was turned off in a rare area of low PSR coverage. with the other 3 flights, their flight paths only briefly interceted areas with low coverage. unfortunately the article is down, but it shows how planes could be switched out there for a brief second i guess. so the 9/11 commission report doesn't say about about PSR coverage for the other three flights, but team8+ thinks that the transponders were turned off at exact points with a small hole in PSR coverage.

I don't know where you are getting your information that UAL175 and UAL93 came close to each other, truth911. The flight paths indicated in this graphic do not show that.

"Question 2: Why go to all that trouble when you can take off from nearby airports (Dulles/Newark), hijack the plane and crash it straight away?"

My opinion on this question: The reason they did this is so that they could stage a phony, mock-Arab hijacking on each plane. The object was to fool the passengers into thinking the hijackers were Arab-Muslims. The passengers were then allowed to pass this pseudo-information on via their phone calls, and in this way frame the Arabs. Remember, this was a false-flag operation.

There is evidence from both AAL11 and UAL175 that the hijackings took place after the planes had turned off their transponders and gone silent. Thus there were two hijackings on each plane: the real one and the phony one. The planes needed to take long circuitous routes for the hijackers to put on this phony display.

Also, since these hijackers may then have been Israeli operatives disguised as Arabs, they may not have wanted to complete suicide missions. Consider that they may have bailed out of the planes with parachutes, thus explaining that each flight flew over sparsely populated rural areas.

Upon further review I see the graphic I provided is junk. It shows UAL93 departing at the same time as AAL11 and before AAL175. UAL93 actually departed at 8:42, which is 43 minutes after FL11 departed and 28 minutes after FL175 departed.

"Since ATC could not track AA 77 with PSR like they had done with the other three hijacked planes when their transponders were turned off, ATC assumed it crashed. This reasonable assumption allowed AA 77 to hit the pentagon at 9:37 without being intercepted by the military."

Not that tracking it with PSR actually helps, as, according to the official theory, NONE of the planes were intercepted by the military either.

This is the Pentagon. It has more defenses than PSR tracking. NOTHING SHOULD HAVE HIT THE PENTAGON.

Seriously though, anyone who sympathises or hasn't lived in a cave for the last century will understand impeachment and accountability in the context of 911 includes prosecution for treason and mass murder. And considering the military and economic might of the States around the globe, kicking the bastards in the States WILL make a better world.

Furthermore there is an assumtion in many people's minds, even people who are progressive and would never say this, things are the way they are JUST BECAUSE. Implicit in this assumtion is anyone who wants to build a better world is ridiculously naive or JUST DOESN'T UNDERSTAND. My other tagline "Bugger this; I want a better world" comes from a Wildstorm comic called "The Authority" [ imagine a super team who acted like people actually would if they had super-powers, not costumed boy-scouts]. That phrase made me realize that I had still been subconsiously operating under the ASSUMTION: things are just the way the are, just BECAUSE--not because people made them that way and so people can UNMAKE them.

It doesn't sound radical, but if your brain is still wired the "because" way, it is. I actually fought this wisdom(no pun intended)--then realized how stupid that was. And that what I was really fighting was the fear of failure. After all, I do want a better world. That's what being progressive means--actually making changes--not fighting pointlessly forever in circles(a la Chomsky, et al.) And "I want a better wordl" is a reminder to any bastards trolling or NSA gits that I'm not settling for less.

And isn't it sad it took a comic book to push my political awarness to critical mass? That's supposed to be the MSM job, or at least the school system's. So, along with that impeachment and accountability guff...

Interesting that the two planes crossed just south of Albany New York. Just a speculation: Any possibility that the hijackers-- I mean the real ones, not the phony Arab ones-- could have parachuted out of the planes at this spot?

I'm just speculating; I'm not saying this happened. But is there any reason it couldn't have? I don't believe any of the crash scenes have yielded a number of bodies equal to the number on board....

"Pilots for 9/11 Truth is an organization of aviation professionals and pilots throughout the globe that have gathered together for one purpose. We are commited to seeking the truth surrounding the events of the 11th of September 2001. Our main focus concentrates on the four flights, maneuvers performed and the reported pilots. We do not offer theory or point blame. However, we are focused on determining the truth of that fateful day since the United States Government doesn't seem to be very forthcoming with answers. We stand with the Scholars and Veterans for Truth along side family members of the victims -- family members of soldiers who have given the ultimate sacrifice -- including the many Ground Zero workers who are now ill or have passed away, when we ask for a new independent investigation into the events of 9/11. We do not accept the 9/11 Commission report as a satisfactory explanation for the sacrifice every American has made and continues to make -- some more than others. Thank you for taking the time to inform yourself."

I don't understand why he says some of the FAA personnel have not been interviewed, but are available for interview. If they are available for interview, why doesn't somebody talk to them? Get these guys on camera for Loose Change: Final Cut!

ya... great interview ! Very well said. I've always thought for a long time that the best peice of evidence is the U.S. Military stand down. Well, not the best, but the most solid and indesputable. They can come up with stories in popular mechanics to explain why WTC 7 and the Twin Towers fell, but they can't even get into some of this stuff. For this reason, i think that the most obvious and easily provable case, is Flight 77. I am writing a 70 page paper on the testimony of Norman Mienta, and the issues surrounding the stand down of flight 77. I will definately be including quotes from this interview. Popular mechanics, 911 myths, no one, has ever even attempted to debunk the norman mineta testimony. I've had debates with people like Abby Scott (i think her name was) and others, and every single one cann't even begin to debate the Norman Mineta Testimony and the stand down. and basically the entire story surrounding the changing accounts that the Goverment has given.

If you'd like to take a look at what i've got so far, it's been like 90% for a long time now, i just keep finding stuff to add in. But you'll definately learn something new by going through this.

Their excuse is that there was only one continental intercept from the end of the Cold War until 9/11 - Payne Stewart. They say that all of the other intercepts cited are out around the coasts, because that's what they were prepared for - attacks from the outside.

"Popular mechanics, 911 myths, no one, has ever even attempted to debunk the norman mineta testimony. I've had debates with people like Abby Scott (i think her name was) and others, and every single one cann't even begin to debate the Norman Mineta Testimony and the stand down. and basically the entire story surrounding the changing accounts that the Goverment has given."

How relible is this guy? Did he work at Boston Air Route Traffic Control Center, because according to his own details (http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/core.html) he was fired there in 1981. He is also remarkable vague about what kind of work he did. Who is he referring to when he talks about "we"?

I apologize for the poor audio quality, as i dont really have the equipment. But Robin Hordon joined our organization a few weeks ago and i wanted to do an interview with him for the upcoming documentary. Many excerpts of his interview will be in the new film. But i also wanted to get it out there to the people now.. So.. there you have it.. :-)

Yeah, it was pretty difficult to hear a lot of stuff, especially for a non-native speaker like myself. But thanks for the interview.

I don't quite understand how to reconcile the following excerpt from the FAA memo submitted to the 9/11 Commission (and ignored by it) and the statement that Flight 77 was lost to radar. Could you try to clarify a bit?

"Within minutes after the first aircraft hit the World Trade Center, the FAA immediately established several phone bridges that included FAA field facilities, the FAA command center, FAA headquarters, DOD, the Secret Service and other government agencies. The U.S. Air Force liaison to the FAA immediately joined the FAA headquarters phone bridge and established contact with NORAD on a separate line. The FAA shared real-time information on the phone bridges about the unfolding events, including information about loss of communication with aircraft, loss of transponder signals, unauthorized changes in course, and other actions being taken by all the flights of interest, including Flight 77."

I have to state that this is some of the most compelling and digestible information I've ever come across in the truth movement. By digestible I mean for main stream citizens. We talk about laws of falling bodies and melting temperatures of metals, and their eyes just glaze over. But THIS, everybody can get a hold of.

This information needs to take the form of a sworn deposition, and ASAP. I fear for many of us, as credibilty attacks and even physical threats are becoming all to common place in our movement.

When this becomes sworn tesitmony, others who have been on the sidelines will almost certainly come forward. And once it's sworn, the Neocons can't "thug" their way out of it. It's evidence, plain and simple.

Some blogger asked here in recent days where our lawyers are withing the truth movement. dz, I'd say it's time for pilots for the truth and judicial watch.org to shake hands!

I thought the same thing -- depose this guy! He refers to others in Boston who knew by the afternnon that 9/11 was an inside job. They can be deposed without a subpeona specific to a formal 9/11 inquiry.

Remind them that this is their best protection, not to mention the best execution of their patriotic responsibilities.

There is a "strength in numbers" issue at hand here as well. Not only would it give this evidence more credibilty to have other corroborating depositions, but it would also provide a larger safety net for those who have feared to come forward until now. Folks, this is HUGE for the movement, and it must be treated as such.

I propose a Legal Representation Fund that can be donated to right here on "Blogger". We've got to get this stuff in the vault now!

Any other controllers with balls as big as yours?And when did you decide to come forward with this?
Did you see the video of the four air traffic controllers who did'nt argue much with the offical BS,and what are your comments about that?
And last of all please be careful,and may GOD BLESS YOU.YOU DO YOUR COUNTRY PROUD!

I learned that the air traffic controllers could only testify to the images that they cab see on their radar screen.

I also learned that the images that they see on their radar screens are created by signals which result from the manual input of a numeric Flight Code into ANY Flight Transponder at ANY time.

Let us not forget that there were abnormalities reported concerning the flight transponders of every flight and that there are still unanswered questions regarding the actual existence of the 2 American Airlines flights, There are reports that those flights were not even scheduled for that day.

I greatly appreciate this interview. It makes me wonder: If ATCs all knew and followed AA 11 all the way to the WTC, weren't they tempted to look out the window and watch? Did anyone that had ATC information do so or alert anyone to look? It seems only human that, if they had it in their field of vision and knew it was off course, they'd look -- I'm talking about from LGA, NWK, JFK (or anyone that anyone there might have alerted). Hordon paints a picture of "they all knew", so didn't anyone look up from their screen? If not, why not?

The controllers we are talking about are en route controllers. That means they work in windowless buildings that guide airplanes between the airspaces controlled by airport controllers. They never actually see any planes.

The controllers you see in the tower at an airport usually only control the planes on the ground: taxiing, crossing runways, etc. Once the airplanes leave the ground they are controlled by radar controllers who also work in a windowless room below the tower. Those controllers work the planes until they are about 5-10 thousand feet up, when they are handed off to en route controllers working in an air traffic control center.

Has there been any discussion of simultaneous war games being conducted on 9/11/01?
What is the opinion of pilots for 9/11 truth about this buried fact?
Weren't the ATC overwhelmed with numerous false blimps and simulated hijackings that fateful morning?

It will be discussed in upcoming documentary. We are still researching the issue. It will be covered in the flim.. The Flight of American 77... and we also will be doing a complete documentary on Air Traffic Control and the war games involved... we are trying to gather as much information as possible currently.